Germany’s Federal Court of Justice held that the name of the James Bond character “Miss Moneypenny” does not enjoy independent work-title protection under § 5(1) and (3) German Trademark Act, because the fictional figure lacks the visual individuality and standalone fame required t
A Pennsylvania federal court upheld a $28,000 jury verdict for Penn State in its long-running trademark suit against vintage-merch retailer Vintage Brand, treating initial interest confusion not as a standalone doctrine but as one way to satisfy the standard multi-factor confusion analysis.
A Pennsylvania federal court upheld a $28,000 jury verdict for Penn State in its long-running trademark suit against vintage-merch retailer Vintage Brand, treating initial interest confusion not as a standalone doctrine but as one way to satisfy the standard multi-factor confusion analysis.
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice dismissed Ferrari’s appeal challenging the “Testa Rossa” trademark, leaving in place the BPatG’s January 2025 ruling that bad-faith trademark applications under § 8(2) No. 10 MarkenG require objective evidence of damaging or obstructin
The Ninth Circuit held that NFTs qualify as ‘goods’ under the Lanham Act and reversed summary judgment for Yuga Labs on Bored Ape Yacht Club trademark and cybersquatting claims, finding genuine factual disputes for trial.
The Ninth Circuit held that NFTs qualify as ‘goods’ under the Lanham Act and reversed summary judgment for Yuga Labs on Bored Ape Yacht Club trademark and cybersquatting claims, finding genuine factual disputes for trial.
France’s Cour de cassation held that when assessing trademark forfeiture for non-use under Article L.714-5 CPI, courts must analyze whether the proven use covers an autonomous sub-category of goods or services narrower than the registered category — looking to the purpose or destination of the
The Supreme Court unanimously held that an award of “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendant entity and may not include profits of legally separate affiliated companies, unless those affiliates are alter egos or otherwise liable.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that an award of “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendant entity and may not include profits of legally separate affiliated companies, unless those affiliates are alter egos or otherwise liable.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s restriction on registering marks that include a living person’s name without their consent is a content-based but viewpoint-neutral restriction that does not violate the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s restriction on registering marks that include a living person’s name without their consent is a content-based but viewpoint-neutral restriction that does not violate the First Amendment.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register EVERYBODY VS. RACISM as a trademark for apparel, holding that the phrase functions as an informational, anti-racist message rather than as a source identifier — and confirming that widespread use of a phrase in an informational contex
The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register EVERYBODY VS. RACISM as a trademark for apparel, holding that the phrase functions as an informational, anti-racist message rather than as a source identifier — and confirming that widespread use of a phrase in an informational contex
The Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB’s cancellation of Great Concepts’ DANTANNA’S restaurant trademark, holding that filing a fraudulent Section 15 incontestability declaration does not give the Board authority to cancel the underlying registration — fraud after registration has l
The Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB’s cancellation of Great Concepts’ DANTANNA’S restaurant trademark, holding that filing a fraudulent Section 15 incontestability declaration does not give the Board authority to cancel the underlying registration — fraud after registration has l
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s trademark infringement provisions apply only to infringing use in commerce that occurs within the United States; foreign conduct is not actionable even if infringing products ultimately enter the U.S. market.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s trademark infringement provisions apply only to infringing use in commerce that occurs within the United States; foreign conduct is not actionable even if infringing products ultimately enter the U.S. market.
The Supreme Court held that when a defendant uses an allegedly parodic mark as a source identifier — as an actual trademark — the Rogers test for expressive works does not apply, and the ordinary likelihood-of-confusion analysis governs, with parody as a relevant but not dispositive factor.
The Supreme Court held that when a defendant uses an allegedly parodic mark as a source identifier — as an actual trademark — the Rogers test for expressive works does not apply, and the ordinary likelihood-of-confusion analysis governs, with parody as a relevant but not dispositive factor.
The Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB’s cancellation of Coca-Cola’s U.S. registrations for THUMS UP and LIMCA, holding that a petitioner seeking cancellation under Lanham Act § 14(3) must show actual consumer confusion or misrepresentation affecting the U.S. market — competitive injury a
The Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB’s cancellation of Coca-Cola’s U.S. registrations for THUMS UP and LIMCA, holding that a petitioner seeking cancellation under Lanham Act § 14(3) must show actual consumer confusion or misrepresentation affecting the U.S. market — competitive injury a
The Federal Circuit struck down the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that include a living person’s name without their consent as applied to “TRUMP TOO SMALL,” holding it was an unconstitutional restriction on speech critical of public figures — though the Supreme Court later reversed.
The Federal Circuit struck down the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that include a living person’s name without their consent as applied to “TRUMP TOO SMALL,” holding it was an unconstitutional restriction on speech critical of public figures — though the Supreme Court later reversed.
The Supreme Court held that combining a generic word with “.com” does not automatically make the resulting term generic; whether a term is generic depends on consumer perception, and “Booking.com” is not generic for hotel reservation services.